United States
                  [Environmental Protection
                  Agency
Atmospheric Research and
Exposure Assessment Laboratory
Research Triangle Park NC 27711
                  Research and Development
 EPA/600/S3-90/005  Mar. 1990
&EPA         Project  Summary

                  Development and
                  Validation  of a  Test
                  Method for  Formaldehyde
                  Emissions
                  E. D. Estes, W. F. Gutknecht, D. L Hardison, G. B. Howe, R. K. M. Jayanty, and
                  J. A. O'Rourke
                   Formaldehyde has been identified
                 as a suspect carcinogen and may be
                 regulated in the  future  as a
                 hazardous air pollutant under Section
                 112 of the Clean Air Act.  The full
                 report details the field validation of a
                 test  method  for  sampling and
                 analyzing formaldehyde emissions
                 from stationary sources. Three
                 potential source  methods were
                 evaluated. One method, the basic
                 peroxide impinger/ion  chroma-
                 tography (1C) method is based upon
                 the dissolution and oxidation of
                 formaldehyde in the impinger reagent
                 to form formate  ion, which is
                 measured by 1C. The second method
                 is a  dinitrophenylhydrazine-coated
                 (DNPH)  cartridge/high performance
                 liquid  chromatography  (HPLC)
                 method, which is  based  on the
                 reaction  of formaldehyde with 2,4-
                 DNPH and subsequent analysis of the
                 hydrazone derivative by HPLC. The
                 third    method,   the   DNPH
                 irnpinger/HPLC  method extends the
                 range of the cartridge  method
                 through the use of  higher  capacity
                 DNPH impinger solutions.
                   Field  testing of the methods were
                 conducted at two different sites. At a
                 formaldehyde manufacturing plant,
                 where formaldehyde  levels were high
                 (> 100 mg/cu m),  samples were
                 collected using the  basic peroxide
                 impinger method  and the  DNPH
                 impinger method. At a formaldehyde
                 user  facility,  where formaldehyde
levels  were  low,  samples were
collected  using the DNPH-coated
cartridge  method  and  the  DNPH
impinger method.
  A statistical evaluation indicates
that the DNPH impinger method is
acceptable for determining both low
and  high  concentrations of
formaldehyde. Because of its range,
this method is recommended as the
reference  method for determination
of formaldehyde in source emissions.
  The full report  is submitted in
fulfillment  of EPA Contract Nos. 68-
02-4125 and 68-02-4550  by  the
Research Triangle Institute under the
sponsorship   of  the    U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency.
The report covers  a  period  from
February 1987, through April 1989.
  This  Project Summary  was
developed by EPA's Atmospheric
Research and Exposure  Assessment
Laboratory, Research Triangle Park,
NC, to announce key findings of the
research  project  that is  fully
documented in a separate report of
the same  title (see Project  Report
ordering information at back).

Introduction
  Formaldehyde has been identified as a
suspect carcinogen and may be
regulated in the future as a hazardous air
pollutant under Section 112 of the Clean
Air Act. The  U. S.  Environmental
Protection  Agency (USEPA)  has an
ongoing program to evaluate and

-------
    Methods Evaluated
                                    smaller

                                    9as was

                                   manufactunng se a^iST', ,3' the






                                   were made a, each ste1ThePd"ferent da^s
                                   minutes in            r"nS Were 45
                                                                 SrSofofzwedaala-'h-

                                                                 ^oX^^-rinT"-
solution/high
              (HPLC>
                         imP'n9er


      .T-.-^MC uenvative by HPI P  Th«
                               Sample Analysis
                                                                 wc  resulted  n inc easd

                                                                 formaldehyde concpnt«f-

                                                                 operations were S« H"; Statistical

                                                                 the DNPH .              C°mpare


                              rr s~;^e;rcs   •  -  -p—n,,
                              rmamln'9  'Cant breaktnrough  FoMhl   ~mpa™on of the me,
                              th'r,m  9 'mpm9er pairs. *e contents of   °' vanance for a two

                              " aTn^:5:^™^^a"d"u.ed        	
                                                                       the
                                                                                   1

                                                                                      9 ana|ysis
                                                                                    classification
Sample Collection
                              equipped w  a  o

                              Varian  UV-50

                              detector set at 365
                                                        HPLC
                                                     °op and a
  .  The DNPH
                             gravity ,eed  us,ng 6

                             eluate was collectprt ,

                             'lasks and  dH^d     h

                             Measurements we re mil    mark

                             HPLC system descnbed^bte'3'"9 th

                               Preparation
                               ™pinger
                                                     prior to
                                                               DNPH


-------
increased. The  average  BSD for  these
data was 1.9 percent with a range of 0.9
to 3.9  percent.  The respective, pooled
standard  deviations for the impinger and
cartridge  data were calculated to be 4.9
and  2.1  percent.  A comparison of  the
means  again  using analysis of variance
indicated the methods to be significantly
different  at the  95  percent confidence
level.  The  average  difference   was
calculated to  be 0.079 mg/cu m or 7.5
percent,  with  the  DNPH cartridges
producing demonstrably  higher values.
Several parameters which collectively
may have contributed to  this  difference
include slightly lower collection efficiency
in the impingers, loss from the impingers
(in the  form of aerosol), and some minor
interferent or formaldehyde background
on the  cartridges. The average recovery
for  the  DNPH-formaldehyde  derivative
spike at  the user site was 92 percent,
which  supports the first  of  the  two
possible reasons given for the difference
between the methods.
Conclusion
  The best precision was obtained with
the  DNPH-coated  cartridge/HPLC
method, which  had a pooled  standard
deviation of 0.023 mg/cu m.  The method
was  also the easiest to use, with no
possibility of sample containers breaking
or reagents spilling in the field.  However,
the  capacity  of  the cartridge  was
exceeded  quickly   at  the   high
concentrations  (>  100 mg/cu  m)  of
formaldehyde generally  present  at  the
formaldehyde manufacturing  facilities.
  The DNPH impinger/HPLC method was
tested  at  both  the formaldehyde
manufacturing site and the formaldehyde
user site. A statistical evaluation indicates
that  this  method  is  acceptable  for
determining   both  low  and   high
concentration levels of formaldehyde.
Because of its  poor detection  limit,  the
basic peroxide  impinger/IC  method was
found  to  b e   unsuitable   for  the
determination  of  very  low  levels  of
formaldehyde (0.5 to 5 mg/cu m) such as
those found at formaldehyde user  sites.
The  method also yielded  unacceptable
results for the very high concentrations of
formaldehyde  (>   500  mg/cu  m)
sometimes  found  at  formaldehyde
manufacturing facilities, because  the
formaldehyde is not  completely oxidized
to formate ion. The  method  does show
potential  at  intermediate levels  (50-300
mg/cu m),  and,  because the reagents
used are safer and easier to prepare in
the field than those  used for the DNPH
impinger method, it is recommended that
the oxidation reaction be studied further.
  The major  objective of the study was to
develop  and  recommend a single method
for  sampling   and  analysis   of
formaldehyde  over  a wide  range  of
concentrations (< 1  mg/cu m to  > 500
mg/cu m).  The  DNPH  impinger/HPLC
method  meets this  requirement  and is
therefore recommended as  the reference
method.  However, in  view of the excellent
precision obtained for  the DNPH-coated
cartridge method  and its ease of use,  it is
recommended  that  this  method  be
approved as  an alternate when low levels
of formaldehyde are expected.

-------
 E. D. Estes, W. F. Gutknecht, D. L. Hardison, G. B. Howe, R. K. M. Jayanty and J.
     A. O'Rourke are with Research Triangle Institute, Research Triangle Park, NC
     27709.
 Jimmy C. Pau is the EPA Project Officer (see below).
   The complete report, entitled "Development and Validation of a Test Method for
        Formaldehyde Emissions," (Order No.  PB-90-183-419AS; Cost: $17.00
        subject to change) will be available only from:
            National Technical Information Service
            5285 Port Royal Road
            Springfield, VA22161
            Telephone: 703-487-4650
   The EPA Project Officer can be  contacted at:
            Atmospheric Research and Exposure Assessment Laboratory
            U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
            Research Triangle Park, NC 27711
United States                   Center for Environmental Research
Environmental Protection         Information
Agency                         Cincinnati OH 45268
Official Business
Penalty for Private Use $300

EPA/600/S3-90/005

-------